Posted on 09/26/2018 1:57:57 PM PDT by C19fan
She says she was Mark Judge’s girlfriend, but would Mark Judge say she was his girlfriend?
What is this? Gossip? This is crap
Mr Judge is not the person in question at this time. If she has nothing to say directly about Kavanaugh’s actions then there is no reason for her to be heard.
[Elizabeth]Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated in it.
What I would guess probably happened: Creepy Porn Lawyer and woman who needs $$$ read this account in the newspaper, and decided to fill in the blanks themselves.
Well said. LOL
Why are uncorroborated stories from 35 years ago by an ex girlfriend of a classmate of a nominee event relevant?
...don’t judge Judge Judge
Crazy Ex-Girlfriend
That would be a good title for a rockabilly song. And if the pussy footing rockabillies don’t want it, a new folk singer should take it.
Funny!
Stupid people don't know that ...
The left has united us in a way that no figure on the right could have.
Uh oh...... she’s pivotal
That’s it!
All of this has been scripted for well over a month. All these accusers have been lined up and are being rolled out on the dem schedule. Expect more women coming forward before Friday, this poor guy never had a chance. The dems sat back during the hearings knowing all along,they would wait until the hearings ended and launch the strategy, Ricki Siedman (who coached Anita Hill) put together with other smear experts.
Indeed. If true this should disqualify Mark Judge from being on the Supreme Court.
When Ruth goes, the attention will be away from Kavanagh, especially after the dems get slaughtered in the mid terms.
If there is a legal (criminal or civil suit) claim to be made against anyone, the place, whether years earlier or now has always been the courts. That was not done because hearsay evidence and he-said she-said claims do not make a convincing case - beyond a shadow of a doubt. The women “coming forward” and their “lawyers” know it, and know their cases never would or will be won in the courts.
That leaves the real purpose of using the venue of the Senate hearings as the venue of preference for these claims. They cannot be proved or disproved in the Senate but no matter what will use the “guilty until proven innocent” standard to taint now and forever the reputations of the accused. THAT is the only thing to be “accomplished” and its purpose is just 100% political.
Let these women take their cases to the courts if they dare. Should they win - highly doubtful - the Senate always has the possibility of impeaching any appointed official for lying in any hearing in which they testified to the Senate.
No chance any of these women will do that. They don’t want their accusations judged in court. They just want to get away with making them without them ever be proved.
Indeed. If true this should disqualify Mark Judge from being on the Supreme Court.
When crazy pron lawyer sent emails to the committee on Sunday about the Julie women he had a list of questions they were to ask Kavanaugh and CPL was firm that they must call Mark Judge in to testify also.
So this setup I guess is going to tie in mark Judge and prove he was a drunkard and try to tie Judge Kavanaugh to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.